Last month, Ryan, one host of the Nintendo Fun Club Podcast, chronicled his experience with Error Code 200101, a recurring issue preventing him from transferring $570 worth of Virtual Console purchases from the Wii to the Wii U. Three calls to Nintendo customer support throughout the course of a week seemed to be getting him no closer to having his problem fixed. The whole scenario had Ryan running up against the same $85 Wii "repair" wall I encountered.

Then something surprising happened. As Ryan notes in a follow-up post, his fourth call to Nintendo support left him with a $620 account credit in the Wii Shop Channel—including a $50 bonus for "the inconvenience." Nintendo could apparently also remotely delete the licenses for the games purchased on his Wii system, allowing him to easily repurchase the games he lost. This was especially interesting to me, because the Nintendo customer service rep I talked to told me in no uncertain terms such license deletion was impossible.

It might seem exceedingly generous of Nintendo to spend $620 to keep a disgruntled customer happy, but when you think about it, that's not really money out of the company's pocket. Nintendo had already received the money for those purchases when Ryan made them on the Wii, and it doesn't really cost Nintendo anything to create another digital copy of the games Ryan will be downloading. At worst, the $50 "bonus" could be seen as a cut out of the money Ryan might have spent on future Virtual Console content. That's it.

In any case, this kind of replacement shouldn't require haranguing Nintendo customer support with multiple calls. This should be the default position once Nintendo confirms technical issues hold previous purchases hostage. Unfortunately, we are still hearing reports of other Wii U owners being forced to pay for repairs in order to move their games over.

Nintendo has yet to respond to numerous requests for comment from Ars about its Virtual Console DRM scheme and issues with transferring games between systems.

Promoted Comments

It is interesting that Nintendo would rather provide a credit than allow users to re-download the games. It may be a technical hurdle that they are trying to work around, and 'fixing' issues with a credit for the short term. If I were Nintendo, I would much rather have customers re-downloading the same content that was already owned than having credit to be able to buy new content.

It is interesting that Nintendo would rather provide a credit than allow users to re-download the games. It may be a technical hurdle that they are trying to work around, and 'fixing' issues with a credit for the short term. If I were Nintendo, I would much rather have customers re-downloading the same content that was already owned than having credit to be able to buy new content.

It might seem exceedingly generous of Nintendo to spend $620 to keep a disgruntled customer happy, but when you think about it, that's not really money out of the company's pocket. Nintendo had already received the money for those purchases when Ryan made them on the Wii, and it doesn't really cost Nintendo anything to create another digital copy of the games Ryan will be downloading.

It doesn't seem generous, but it definitely shows an amazing amount of goodwill considering all of the issues you had with this same dilemma.

It also seems a little out of character from a company in an industry where restrictive licensing is the norm. I'm curious to know if this is a true change to their procedures, or if it is a one-off.

Wow. That is just insane that they would do this to customers. It certainly is a good way to insure some customers have bought their last Nintendo if they lose that much money or have to go through too much trouble to get what they paid for. Perhaps they should rethink their purchasing system to make going from one console to the next a little easier.

Since he states he will not be buying the same set of games that he originally had, is it true that it's not costing them anything? It's true if the games are in-house, but I would think if they were created by outside companies (I don't know if this is the case), Nintendo will owe money to different ones than were originally paid.

If Nintendo could actually give you the games, instead of giving you the credit and allowing you to buy them, that would solve that issue for them, so the only remaining issue (I think) would be game save data.

Draconian DRM seems to be increasingly common on all platforms and it does nothing but hurt/hassle customers who legitimately purchase a product. People who want to pirate the software will break your DRM as has been shown time and time again. I primarily purchase games via Steam currently but I have actually purchased games in the past then downloaded a cracked version because the DRM for the game was so annoying and ruined the experience by making it incredibly frustrating just to start the game.

So, has anyone heard of anyone receiving service like this that wasn't complaining loudly on the internet? I'm not saying I fault the people that are getting their voices heard, but it makes me wonder if I would have any luck in a similar situation if I did nothing but call customer service and didn't send some bad press Nintendo's way.

So, has anyone heard of anyone receiving service like this that wasn't complaining loudly on the internet? I'm not saying I fault the people that are getting their voices heard, but it makes me wonder if I would have any luck in a similar situation if I did nothing but call customer service and didn't send some bad press Nintendo's way.

Or what about people who aren't willing to deal with the confrontation or hassle and simply won't call up customer service at all? There are no doubt a number of consumers who have been screwed by this policy who just took a loss and walked away.

Couldn't they solve this by doing what Apple does, where if you deauthorize a computer you can't re-authorize it for 90 days? That way you could authorize a new console - causing your old one to deauthorize - allowing you to transfer your games over while still preventing people from abusing the system.

It's a real insult that they can't figure this out after watching MS/Sony/Steam do it for 7 years. I won't buy any digital content until they get this fixed. I like Nintendo games but their O/S and non-gaming functionality teams are a disaster.

Couldn't they solve this by doing what Apple does, where if you deauthorize a computer you can't re-authorize it for 90 days? That way you could authorize a new console - causing your old one to deauthorize - allowing you to transfer your games over while still preventing people from abusing the system.

Sure but they chose not to do. They chose to use a convoluted system that essentially "just" copied the actual game data+saves and license from one unit to another even though both were registered with the same account.

Or maybe you design a system that works that doesn't force consumers to jump through hoops to get to content they paid for?

The fact that Nintendo just launched a new console that still doesn't get this right (by tying content to a user account, not hardware) is baffling.

Are you saying that tying games to the hardware is always better? Personally I don't think so and would like to have the option of tying it to the hardware or the account.

He's saying just the opposite - the right way is by tying it to account, as Sony and MS do, and unlike Nintendo does. And I agree. it is, indeed, baffling that Nintendo couldn't just follow the almost decade-old example of Sony and MS and do this the right. It's like they have this stubborn insistence on deliberately being a decade behind the times on anything having to do with the internet.

Or maybe you design a system that works that doesn't force consumers to jump through hoops to get to content they paid for?

The fact that Nintendo just launched a new console that still doesn't get this right (by tying content to a user account, not hardware) is baffling.

Are you saying that tying games to the hardware is always better? Personally I don't think so and would like to have the option of tying it to the hardware or the account.

He's saying just the opposite - the right way is by tying it to account, as Sony and MS do, and unlike Nintendo does. And I agree. it is, indeed, baffling that Nintendo couldn't just follow the almost decade-old example of Sony and MS and do this the right. It's like they have this stubborn insistence on deliberately being a decade behind the times on anything having to do with the internet.

To me it looks like what is written in the parentheses is an explanation of how it's done now, not how he thinks it should be.

Couldn't they solve this by doing what Apple does, where if you deauthorize a computer you can't re-authorize it for 90 days? That way you could authorize a new console - causing your old one to deauthorize - allowing you to transfer your games over while still preventing people from abusing the system.

Sure but they chose not to do. They chose to use a convoluted system that essentially "just" copied the actual game data+saves and license from one unit to another even though both were registered with the same account.

But why wouldn't they do it that way? What disadvantage is there to them?

Nintendo is not an operating system company, and unfortunately there are some very visible teething problems as their software competency has to move well past games into use cases well outside their core competency. Hopefully they can eventually get there, since consoles are likely only going to become more integrated ecosystems as time goes on. License transfer systems aren't easy to design, and Sony and MS have had much more experience with their corporate diversity.

Couldn't they solve this by doing what Apple does, where if you deauthorize a computer you can't re-authorize it for 90 days? That way you could authorize a new console - causing your old one to deauthorize - allowing you to transfer your games over while still preventing people from abusing the system.

Sure but they chose not to do. They chose to use a convoluted system that essentially "just" copied the actual game data+saves and license from one unit to another even though both were registered with the same account.

But why wouldn't they do it that way? What disadvantage is there to them?

As far as we can see none, but this is most likely something spawned in the name of "reducing piracy" and driven from on high in the bureaucratic chain. Corporate bureaucracy is something you can't even phantom to understand unless you are on the inside, and even then in most cases only if you are high enough up on the ladder.

This is great example of the biggest pitfall of charity and why companies are increasingly reluctant to give ANYBODY a break on something. Whomever they help mentions the 'great deal' to their friends and soon everybody is expecting the same treatment.

Nintendo does need to come up with a solution for the transfer problem, but just throwing money to customers doesn't work in the long-term.

This is great example of the biggest pitfall of charity and why companies are increasingly reluctant to give ANYBODY a break on something. Whomever they help mentions the 'great deal' to their friends and soon everybody is expecting the same treatment.

Nintendo does need to come up with a solution for the transfer problem, but just throwing money to customers doesn't work in the long-term.

How about cash-back on the repair if you transfer all of the games within 30 days?Or you have 30 days to pay and it gets annulled if you transfer before that (for those who are strapped for money)?

If the repair didn't cost anything in the end then it would most likely be a smaller inconvenience that many would be OK with, compared to today when it's also a financial hit.

They made it so easy to not get any of my money, and if this system isn't fixed then they'll continue to not get any of my money in the future. It blows my mind how hard companies work to make sure people don't buy into their ecosystems. Thanks, Nintendo. You've saved me a lot of money.

It baffles me how Nintendo has hilariously fucked up online, especially with a certain competitor's product that's over 7 years old and allows redownloading, works on any console provided the buyer is logged in or just transfer the main license over.

Granted, not all of these features were there day 1 from other competitors, but it's like Nintendo is still living in their own little world.

This is great example of the biggest pitfall of charity and why companies are increasingly reluctant to give ANYBODY a break on something. Whomever they help mentions the 'great deal' to their friends and soon everybody is expecting the same treatment.

Can Nintendo deduct that "Charity"? I think this is more a case of "no bad deed that you drag your feet to sorta patch over should be forgotten and forgiven instantly".

I wonder if their DRM system is done this way because they fear a patent landmine. Or, perhaps they have a bad contract with the game publishers, where they'd have to renegotiate everything (for the worse) to change the licensing scheme?

With this digital distribution model, Nintendo seems like they are in a good place to run more of a subscription model. Pay x$ per month or year, and you are allowed to checkout x titles at a time. return licenses for titles you're done with to play new titles. Nintendo gets a continuous stream of money and you get to play any game you want from a vast library. It cost's Nintendo nothing to license you the games.

In any case, this kind of replacement shouldn't require haranguing Nintendo customer support with multiple calls. This should be the default position once Nintendo confirms technical issues hold previous purchases hostage.

No. The default position should be allowing you to download your purchases on as many Nintendo consoles as you want and play them as long as you are signed in. That is the standard (XBL, PSN, Android, iOS, Steam, etc), and Nintendo doesn't get a pass because they are Nintendo. If they want to stay relevant they need to step up and start taking things seriously instead of pretending the internet and digital distribution is still some new and confusing thing.

In any case, this kind of replacement shouldn't require haranguing Nintendo customer support with multiple calls. This should be the default position once Nintendo confirms technical issues hold previous purchases hostage.

No. The default position should be allowing you to download your purchases on as many Nintendo consoles as you want and play them as long as you are signed in. That is the standard (XBL, PSN, Android, iOS, Steam, etc), and Nintendo doesn't get a pass because they are Nintendo. If they want to stay relevant they need to step up and start taking things seriously instead of pretending the internet and digital distribution is still some new and confusing thing.

I disagree. Steam has it right as do IOS and Android (I think, I don't do the entire smartphone thing) but XBL and PSN arbitrarily prevent backwards compatibility. Nintendo is taking a really good step forward by providing backwards compatibility with digitally distributed goods as well as keeping backward compatibility with how many consoles now? Does the Wii-U support Gamecube games?

This makes me think of the Xbox > Xbox 360 Live transition which cut off Xbox online play. These systems and games have hardcoded specifications that it is not trivial matter to update to the new system.

Then we have the PC where being open modders can take it upon themselves to keep making old games work. I can still go play Heroes of Might & Magic online. While say Rise of Nations I can not since it has Gamespy embedded in it., where service gets cut off in time. Some Windows XP games do not work on Windows 7, but for the most part they do with little work needed.

Hopefully Microsoft and Sony learn from Nintendo and make their digital content transferable between old and new generation of consoles. Make their online systems more modular that can work with future console operating systems and have the ability to easily add features. Nintendo recreated their online system (much like Microsoft did, tho they were able to keep the foundation of it but lose out on backward compatibility) which offers features but does not work with older content well.

This is great example of the biggest pitfall of charity and why companies are increasingly reluctant to give ANYBODY a break on something. Whomever they help mentions the 'great deal' to their friends and soon everybody is expecting the same treatment.

Nintendo does need to come up with a solution for the transfer problem, but just throwing money to customers doesn't work in the long-term.

I don't see this as customer's asking for a break or a concession, this is people wanting to be able to use software they have legitimately purchased and not have to pay a fee to use it on a new platform. This is not rocket surgery. It is a no brainer that people should be able to play games they downloaded with the Wii on the Wii U as long as they are compatible with the new hardware. This should be a no brainer and it should have been a seamless transition from the Wii to the Wii U.

By making it difficult and making people pay to transer games they already bought Nintendo is shooting itself in the foot. It is alienating people who already bought the Wii U and generating bad press that is keeping others, including me, from buying a Wii U now. I was excited about the new console, but one of the primary things the Wii is used for in my house is playing old games on the virtual console and after reading about the hassles people have had with transferring those my wife and I have elected to wait to see if they work that out before buying a Wii U.

As far as I am aware, any backward compatibility that doesn't work is technically driven, not policy driven. It's a shame when consoles aren't backwards compatible, but that's sometimes not avoidable. There should be no technical reasons why virtual console games don't work on any recent Nintendo device.

In any case, this kind of replacement shouldn't require haranguing Nintendo customer support with multiple calls. This should be the default position once Nintendo confirms technical issues hold previous purchases hostage.

No. The default position should be allowing you to download your purchases on as many Nintendo consoles as you want and play them as long as you are signed in. That is the standard (XBL, PSN, Android, iOS, Steam, etc), and Nintendo doesn't get a pass because they are Nintendo. If they want to stay relevant they need to step up and start taking things seriously instead of pretending the internet and digital distribution is still some new and confusing thing.

I disagree. Steam has it right as do IOS and Android (I think, I don't do the entire smartphone thing) but XBL and PSN arbitrarily prevent backwards compatibility. Nintendo is taking a really good step forward by providing backwards compatibility with digitally distributed goods as well as keeping backward compatibility with how many consoles now? Does the Wii-U support Gamecube games?

Switching to a sensible system does not necessarily mean removing backwards compatibility. The restrictions on the XBox and PS3 have nothing to do with how their online purchases are handled.

The mismanagement of its online "ecosystem" is the key reason I've held off on getting a Wii U--not its library. As a supporter of Nintendo it pains me to see the company take so long to get with the program. There's a news story floating around there about them thinking about putting out multiple devices using a singular software platform. That's great and all, and if it means they'll unify this mockery of a marketplace and get their ecosystem strategy right, then I hope they pursue this. I just wonder who the masterminds behind their current strategy are, and how they could ever think that the current state of Nintendo online (including the Wii and the DSi variants) would actually be an acceptable one.

While I don't agree with Nintendo's policies and methods, if you take a moment to think about their biggest audience (school kids), it makes sense that they would tie all purchases to a single console. That maximizes their income and minimizes their exposure to fraud and support hassles. It could be an anti-piracy mechanism, too. Remember when Sony allowed you to put Playstation purchases on up to 5 machines? People shared account credentials, developers got less money, and a few people got their accounts hacked.

I would like for them to figure this out, especially as I prefer to download games whenever possible. I would also like them to offer "cross buy" between Wii U and 3DS (especially for Virtual Console games), like Sony and Apple do for their platforms. As much as we'd like this from Nintendo, we can only buy what they're selling. I'll still choose official Nintendo stuff for my Mario and Zelda fixes, over cheapo alternatives like the JXD Android console.

If and when Nintendo opens up and implements a real account system, expect their support complexity to explode. Recent experience with their Wii U updating troubles makes me think they're not quite ready to offer that level of service.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.